Franklin Hood Tennessee Campaign Question

[rbortega]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

 

[JeffBrooks]

Yes, quite so. And I suppose it's the sheer drama of the desperate attack, gloriously going forward with your flags flying. At Nashville, by contrast, the Confederates were like fish in a barrel.

I actually think Nashville itself is seriously underappreciated.

 

[Luke Freet]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

There's a particular reason. Many people see the Battle of Nashville as lost way before its fought. And it only is that way because Hood gutted the Army of Tennessee & its leadership at Franklin in needless fashion.

Also doesn't help Nashville's favor that, if one were go to primary sources (namely, the O.R.s), for the Confederates side at least, they'd have a much harder time finding concrete information about stuff like casualties & reports & such. Really, there aren't many good reports on the rebels side for Nashville besides those from Lee's Corps. Franklin, however, many more officer wrote reports for their commands actions at Franklin in the weeks prior to Nashville.

 

[Sheltowee]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

In a nutshell- massive confederate charge at Franklin results in horrific carnage….. with 14 generals among the casualties.

For Hood- an absolute disaster.

After the Franklin losses- The fight at Nashville should not have happened.

 

[Luke Freet]

If you read Nashville from the rebels POV (which is how many people view the whole campaign), it is too depressing & pointless to even consider.

Of course, from the Union perspective, its a fantastic victory, though a bit ugly in execution, mostly due to the horrible weather conditions during the battle.

 

[Ole Miss]

At Franklin the Army of Tennesse was mortally wounded, Nashville was just a stop on the way to the morgue. The loss in leadership, quality and quanity of the soldiers and morale was never overcomed and this army was a mere shell by its capitulation in April. This is my conjecture and considered opinion.
Regards
David

 

[Rhea Cole]

Hood's entire campaign from Atlanta to Nashville to Florence was an act of supreme stupidity that wasted the lives of a whole generation in some Tennessee Counties. The hop-haa that surrounds Franklin is an attempt to give it a meaning… the endless rearranging of the deck chairs at Spring Hill speak for themselves.

Thomas' Nashville attack is still studied in staff schools today. The one is profoundly simplistic, the other a work of military genius. It is always easier to romanticize a failure than it is to do the hard work of understanding a complex operation that involved a squadron of tinclads, Mississippi Squadron ironclads, transportation of a corps from Saint Louis, the creation of a hard hitting USCTI attack force, the actual destruction of a CSA army, a pursuit to the Tennessee River that ended the Civil War in Tennessee… not to mention the opening of a luxurious ice cream parlor & three ring circus performing three shows a day throughout the "siege."—- what kind of tragic clown show did Hood think he was putting on?

 

[rbasin]

I'd say the horrific loss of leadership at Franklin on the part of the southerners. Yes, the overall losses were bad, but not in and of itself devastating.

All of that to just come up to Nashville and dig in? Yes, please give the best (imo) soldier of the war two weeks to plan a battle.

 

[bdtex]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

The reason is quite simple...the number of troops engaged and casualties. Many more troops engaged and casualties at Franklin and it was only a 5 hour battle. There were fewer troops engaged and casualties at Nashville and it was a 2 day battle. It is a much discussed campaign here in CivilWarTalk. Opinions are hardened too. There are a number of good books about the campaign, some of them written by members of CivilWarTalk.

 

[Trooper "D"]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

A charge bigger than Longstreet's at Gettysburg and multiple General Officers killed along with irreplaceable men. Nashville might have been different if Franklin didn't happen.

 

[Rhea Cole]

A charge bigger than Longstreet's at Gettysburg and multiple General Officers killed along with irreplaceable men. Nashville might have been different if Franklin didn't happen.

How, exactly? Hood couldn't feed or shelter the men he had.

 

[Trooper "D"]

How, exactly? Hood couldn't feed or shelter the men he had.

At least he had men. Franklin seriously depleted his command. How an army gets fed can be ingenious. Without the manpower resources to have a free hand there is little likelihood of success in anything.

 

[rbasin]

At least he had men. Franklin seriously depleted his command. How an army gets fed can be ingenious. Without the manpower resources to have a free hand there is little likelihood of success in anything.

He definitely depleted his commanders. The losses overall weren't insurmountable.

 

[Rhea Cole]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

Franklin is very romantic, the gitdamarung of the Confederacy. Nashville, on the other hand, is one of the Civil War battles studied in staff schools around the world. The riverine reinforcement, the fixing of Hood's right by the USCTI, attack by gunboats, turning of Hood's left & envelopment by Spencer armed cavalry was an act of genius by Thomas.

Because it was essentially meaningless. Spring Hill has unleashed a flood of ink. As Patrick Cleburne said at the time, night actions during the Civil War were guaranteed chaos. Amateurs are fascinated by the perceived possibilities, professionals not. Franklin is firmly in the no sane leader would do this category.

So, yes, Spring Hill / Franklin stimulates huge amounts of fact, fiction & fantasy writing: the Battle of Nashville is the best me military historians study.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Franklin plays into the romanticized Confederate martyrdom.

Nashville should be remembered because it was one of the most decisive victories of the entire war. That isn't is a combination of it following Franklin (i.e. 'yes, it was decisive, but the Yankees didn't earn/deserve it!') and George H. Thomas.

Thomas died five years after the war, wrote no memoir, and had his wife burn his personal papers. In doing so he surrendered the historical narrative over his actions. That narrative would be dominated instead by men like Grant, Sherman, and Schofield who didn't particularly like Thomas (note: I explicitly do not mean to suggest any deliberate conspiracy) and those who utterly loathed John Bell Hood (i.e. would rather condemn Hood rather than credit his Union counterparts).

 

[uaskme]

Hood gets a lot more attention than Thomas. Thomas was a Yankee stepchild. Hasn't got near the credit he deserves. Don't think you can blame this on lost cause. If Grant had been there a lot more would be written. Grants actions toward Thomas were terrible. Maybe that is why the battle isn't covered that much. Has been brought up, Thomas's chase of Hood rarely gets covered. Most don't think Hood was pursued to any extent.

 

[RedRover]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

bloodshed.

 

[danny]

Hood gets a lot more attention than Thomas. Thomas was a Yankee stepchild. Hasn't got near the credit he deserves. Don't think you can blame this on lost cause. If Grant had been there a lot more would be written. Grants actions toward Thomas were terrible. Maybe that is why the battle isn't covered that much. Has been brought up, Thomas's chase of Hood rarely gets covered. Most don't think Hood was pursued to any extent.

Wanna bet?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

When reading about John Bell Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign, it seems like the battle of Franklin gets more attention than the battle of Nashville. Has anybody else noticed this? If so, why do think one battle gets more attention than the other?

That's an interesting observation, with which I agree. Whereas, Franklin might have been the place where the AOT was mortally wounded, Nashville was the location where it was effectively destroyed as a fighting force. So why has Franklin attracted disproportionately more attention than Nashville?

Thought, relatively speaking, that Franklin had a number of appealing features/aspects (if those words can be used here) that attracted the greater attention of writers and latter- day commentators, particularly those who tended to view the war from a largely Confederate perspective or with a Southern emphasis.

Put simply, think it was because Franklin was considered as the relatively more dramatic event that generated more pathos and idealization due to the circumstances and characters involved, and of course what actually happened there.

At Franklin, there was:

. the controversy created by the so-called 'lost opportunity' at Spring Hill that immediately preceded Hood's decision to attack and this added an extra dimension of interest given to the events that subsequently occurred at Franklin;

. the obvious presence of Hood in the drama, as well as the controversy surrounding his sudden rigid decision made to launch a futile frontal assault against a solid, albeit hastily constructed, Union defensive line, with a low chance of success;

. the appeal of the glorious scene portrayed of a large scale Confederate assault (involving larger numbers than the so-called 'Picketts Charge' at Gettysburg) undertaken across open fields with flags flying and bands playing, against an entrenched enemy defensive position;

. desperate fighting condensed into a relatively shorter dramatized time frame (when compared to the prolonged fighting over two days at Nashville) of substantially about 5 hours (mostly at night);

. sustained intensive fighting at close quarters, often hand-to-hand, that arguably was the most savage of the entire war and this led to plenty of colorful and vivid anecdotes and personalized accounts of brutal incidents being recollected that made for good reading;

. the tragedy of the one-sided slaughter (and consequential carnage) of the AOT, which can be illustrated by analyzing differences in the casualty count estimates for both struggles. (Although total combined casualties in both conflicts were estimated to be roughly similar, the ratio of Confederate/Union losses was about 3:1 at Franklin, compared to almost 2:1 at Nashville.); and

. the permanent loss of seven Confederate Generals (five KIA, one mortally wounded and one captured), including the death of the noteworthy Cleburne.

In my view, the combination of factors such as these, all contributed to making Franklin a much more interesting subject for discussion and commentary for later writers and commentators to direct their attention.

 

[Ole Miss]

Franklin's comes from the senseless loss of life and Hood's stupidity!

Not sure I have ever read of a deep analysis of Hood's plan of battle!
Regards
David